Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence Due to Delay in Execution: State of Maharashtra vs. Pradeep Yashwant Kokade (2024)

Date of the Judgment: 9 December 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 947
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J., and Augustine George Masih, J.
Can the state’s delay in executing a death sentence lead to its commutation? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, examining the impact of prolonged delays on the rights of convicts. This case revolves around the appeals filed by the State of Maharashtra against a High Court decision to commute a death sentence to life imprisonment, citing undue delay in the execution process. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih, with the opinion authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka.

Case Background

The case involves the gruesome murder and rape of a woman who was an employee of a company. On November 1, 2007, the deceased was picked up by a cab driver, Purushottam Dasrath Borate (Convict no. 2), for her night shift. Another employee, Sagar Bidkar, was also to be picked up. When Sagar joined the cab, he found Pradeep Yashwant Kokade (Convict no. 1) already seated in the car. The deceased was later found dead on November 2, 2007, with a postmortem confirming rape and grievous injuries. Both convicts were taken into custody on November 3, 2007. The Sessions Judge, Pune, convicted both the convicts on March 20, 2012, sentencing them to death. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay confirmed the death sentence on September 25, 2012, and the Supreme Court of India upheld it on May 8, 2015.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court, Pune, convicted the accused, and sentenced them to death. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay confirmed this decision, stating that the case fell under the “rarest of the rare” category. The Supreme Court of India also upheld the death sentence. Following this, the convicts filed mercy petitions with the Governor of Maharashtra and later with the President of India. After the rejection of these petitions and significant delays in the execution process, the convicts filed writ petitions before the High Court, challenging the death warrants. The High Court then commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, citing undue and avoidable delay, as well as the convicts being kept in solitary confinement.

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to several key legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines and prescribes punishment for murder.
• Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC: This section deals with the punishment for rape committed by a group.
• Section 364 of the IPC: This section addresses kidnapping or abduction to murder.
• Section 404 of the IPC: This section deals with dishonest misappropriation of property possessed by a deceased person.
• Section 120-B of the IPC: This section defines and prescribes punishment for criminal conspiracy.
• Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section mandates that death sentences passed by a Sessions Court must be confirmed by the High Court.
• Sections 413 and 414 of the CrPC: These sections outline the procedure for executing a death sentence, requiring the Sessions Court to issue a warrant.
  “413. Execution of order passed under section 368 .— When in a case submitted to the High Court for the confirmation of a sentence of death, the Court of Session receives the order of confirmation or other order of the High Court thereon, it shall cause such order to be carried into effect by issuing a warrant or taking such other steps as may be necessary.”
  “414. Execution of sentence of death passed by High Court. — When a sentence of death is passed by the High Court in appeal or in revision, the Court of Session shall, on receiving the order of the High Court, cause the sentence to be carried into effect by issuing a warrant.”
• Sections 453 and 454 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS): These are the corresponding provisions in the new criminal code, mirroring Sections 413 and 414 of the CrPC.
• Article 21 of the Constitution of India: This article guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which the court interprets to include the right to a fair and humane execution process.

The court emphasizes that the procedure for depriving a person of life must be just, fair, and reasonable, in line with the principles of Article 21.

Arguments

Appellants’ (State of Maharashtra) Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the High Court erred by not considering the quantum of delay. They contended that the delay must be both inordinate and avoidable to warrant commutation of a death sentence.
• They submitted that the time taken for disposal of mercy petitions by the Governor and the President was not inordinate, citing the need for thorough review of voluminous records and the complexity of the matter.
• The appellants argued that the major delay was on the part of the Sessions Court, which, according to them, should not be a ground for commutation of the death sentence.
• They argued that the convicts were not kept in solitary confinement, but in a security yard with access to interaction with other prisoners.
• The appellants also stated that the warrants provided a reasonable period between the date of issue and the date of execution and that the convicts were informed of the warrants.

Respondents’ (Convicts) Arguments:

• The respondents argued that unreasonable delay in deciding mercy petitions makes the punishment barbaric and unconstitutional, violating the right to a fair and reasonable procedure under Article 21.
• They submitted that the executive authorities should dispose of mercy petitions within three months, and any delay beyond that should be considered excessive.
• The respondents argued that the High Court was correct in observing that the quantum of delay is not material, and the total delay in this case was excessive.
• They also contended that the poor economic condition and young age of the convicts were not considered while deciding the mercy petitions.
• The respondents further argued that the delay after the rejection of the mercy petitions should be treated as executive delay, as there was a gross delay in issuing execution warrants, and that they were kept in solitary confinement.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the delay in the execution of the death sentence warrants its commutation to life imprisonment.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment, citing inordinate and unexplained delays in the execution process. The Court analyzed the delays at three stages: processing of mercy petitions by the Governor, processing of mercy petitions by the President, and the issuance of execution warrants by the Sessions Court.

The Court emphasized that the delay in this case was not attributable to the convicts but to the executive and judicial processes. It highlighted the importance of Article 21 of the Constitution, which extends to the execution stage of a sentence, and that inordinate delay has a dehumanizing effect on the convict.

Authorities Viewed by the Court:

• Triveniben v. State of Gujarat [(1989) 1 SCC 678]: The Court followed this Constitution Bench decision, which held that undue delay in execution of a death sentence can be a ground for commutation.
• Shatrughan Chauhan & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 1]: The Court relied on this case, which reiterated that undue delay entitles the convict to approach the Court under Article 32.
• People’s Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) v. Union of India & Ors. [2015 SCC OnLine All 143]: The Court approved the procedure laid down by the Allahabad High Court, emphasizing natural justice and sufficient notice to the convict before issuing a death warrant.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to commute the death sentence was primarily influenced by the cumulative effect of delays at various stages of the process, which it deemed to be a violation of the convicts’ rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized the dehumanizing effect of prolonged uncertainty and the importance of a fair and humane execution process. The Court also highlighted the need for the executive and judicial branches to act promptly and efficiently in matters of life and death. The Court noted the lack of sensitivity and casual approach of the executive, particularly the State Government, in handling the mercy petitions and issuing execution warrants.

The Court was particularly concerned about the avoidable delays in processing the mercy petitions, the lack of proper coordination between different government departments, and the failure of the Sessions Court to act proactively in issuing the execution warrants. The Court highlighted that the delays were not attributable to the convicts but were a result of systemic inefficiencies, thereby violating the convicts’ right to a speedy and just execution process.

The Court’s decision was driven by the need to uphold the constitutional rights of the convicts and to ensure that the legal process is not only followed but also implemented with due diligence and sensitivity. The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that the right to life under Article 21 extends to the execution stage of a death sentence and that any inordinate delay in the execution process is a violation of this fundamental right.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Ratio of Fact:Law:

Logical Reasoning:

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in State of Maharashtra vs. Pradeep Yashwant Kokade underscores the importance of a fair and humane execution process. The Court’s emphasis on the need for prompt and efficient action by the executive and judicial branches in cases involving the death penalty is a critical reminder of the constitutional rights of convicts. The judgment serves as a precedent for future cases, highlighting the principle that undue delay in the execution of a death sentence can be a valid ground for its commutation to life imprisonment. The judgment also demonstrates the Court’s commitment to upholding the principles of natural justice and ensuring that the right to life, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, is protected at all stages of the legal process, including the execution of a death sentence.